Digital sovereignty has moved from being a niche policy debate to a frontline political and societal issue in Europe. Once framed largely around data protection, competition law, and cybersecurity, the discussion has now expanded into questions of democratic control, geopolitical independence, and individual freedom.
Across Denmark, Germany, and France, grassroots movements, hacktivist groups, academics, and policymakers are questioning whether Europe’s heavy reliance on American Big Tech has turned the continent into what some describe as a “digital colony.” Against this backdrop, a provocative question is gaining momentum:
Does Europe need to follow China’s model of digital sovereignty to reclaim control over its digital future?
What Digital Sovereignty Means in the European Context
Digital sovereignty in Europe is not about isolation from the internet, nor about authoritarian control over information. Instead, it centers on three core principles:
-
Control over data generated by citizens and institutions
-
Autonomy from foreign technological leverage, particularly from US-based Big Tech
-
Protection of democratic discourse from algorithmic manipulation and political pressure
Movements like Denmark’s Digital Stemme (Digital Voice) highlight how this concern has spread beyond governments and corporations to ordinary citizens. The initiative attracted nearly 8,000 participants in less than a month, underscoring how deeply digital dependency resonates at the individual level.
The timing was not accidental. The launch coincided with escalating rhetoric from US President Donald Trump, including threats related to Greenland—bringing home the reality that digital infrastructure can become a geopolitical weapon.
The Trump Factor: When Technology Becomes Political Leverage
European anxiety about digital dependence intensified after Trump’s re-election and his increasingly confrontational stance toward Europe. A now-iconic image of Trump posing with major US tech executives reinforced fears that political power and platform power are deeply intertwined.
For many Europeans, this symbolized a hard truth:
Big Tech platforms are not neutral tools. They operate within US political and legal frameworks—and can be aligned with Washington’s strategic interests.
This realization helped catalyze movements such as Germany’s Digital Independence Day (DI-Day), launched by the Chaos Computer Club. Their goal is not radical disruption but practical digital self-defence, helping citizens gradually “de-Google” their lives through collaborative learning.
From State Sovereignty to Individual Vulnerability
One of the most striking aspects of Europe’s digital sovereignty debate is its human dimension. Experts like Harald Wehnes of the German Informatics Society warn that digital dependence affects not just states but future generations. His open letter condemning “American technological imperialism” argues that Europe risks losing autonomy over:
-
Communication
-
Commerce
-
Political participation
-
Access to essential services
The fear is not theoretical. If individuals lose access to platforms such as Apple Pay, PayPal, Amazon, or Google services, daily life—from groceries to banking—could become unmanageable overnight.
Algorithmic Power and Democratic Risk
Digital platforms do more than host content—they shape reality. According to Martin Hullin of the Bertelsmann Foundation, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) control information flows through opaque algorithms that can:
-
Amplify polarization
-
Suppress certain narratives
-
Undermine social cohesion
The Cambridge Analytica scandal remains a defining warning. The exploitation of Facebook data to influence voter behavior in 2016 demonstrated how personal data can be weaponized politically—without users’ consent or awareness.
Christensen’s concerns in Denmark—that posts related to digital sovereignty rallies were allegedly receiving less reach—reflect a broader fear:
What happens when political debate is filtered by platforms headquartered outside Europe, in a country with conflicting interests?
Retaliation and the Cost of Resistance
Resistance to Big Tech is not without consequences. Hullin cited cases where German activists fighting online hate were banned from traveling to the US, allegedly for acting against American interpretations of free speech.
German authorities viewed the move as an attempt to impose a US-centric vision of expression that aligns with the interests of political elites and platform owners like Elon Musk.
This raises a chilling question for Europeans: Can digital dissent lead to real-world punishment when platforms and governments align?
Europe’s Search for Alternatives: Beyond American Platforms
Despite Big Tech’s dominance, Europe is not digitally barren. Across the continent, homegrown alternatives exist—but struggle for visibility due to the overwhelming marketing power of US corporations.
Examples include:
-
LibreOffice as an alternative to Microsoft Office
-
Mastodon as a decentralized alternative to X
-
Signal for secure messaging
-
Olvid, a French alternative to WhatsApp
-
Wero, a European mobile payment system
France, under President Emmanuel Macron’s “start-up nation” vision, has pushed state-backed tools such as:
-
Visio (instead of Microsoft Teams)
-
Files (instead of Google Drive)
-
FranceTransfer (instead of WeTransfer)
Meanwhile, initiatives like Austria-based developer Constantin Graf’s catalogues and Germany’s DI-Day provide step-by-step pathways for citizens to reduce digital dependency without disruption.
The China Model: Strong Sovereignty, High Control
China is often cited as the world’s most extreme example of digital sovereignty. Its model includes:
-
Strict control over data flows
-
National champions (Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei)
-
Exclusion or heavy regulation of foreign platforms
-
State oversight of online discourse
From a sovereignty perspective, China has succeeded in eliminating foreign technological leverage. The country controls its infrastructure, platforms, payments, and data ecosystems.
However, this comes at a high cost:
-
Limited freedom of expression
-
State surveillance
-
Centralized control over information
Should Europe Follow China’s Path?
The short answer: No—but Europe cannot ignore the lesson either. Europe’s challenge is fundamentally different from China’s. The EU is built on:
-
Democratic governance
-
Individual rights
-
Free expression
-
Open markets
Adopting China’s model wholesale would undermine these values. However, China’s insistence on technological autonomy offers Europe a strategic lesson:
Digital infrastructure is not just economic—it is political power.
A Distinctly European Model of Digital Sovereignty
Rather than copying China, Europe appears to be developing a third way:
-
Decentralized, not state-controlled
-
Rights-based, not surveillance-driven
-
Pluralistic, not monopolistic
-
Collaborative, involving citizens, NGOs, and governments
Grassroots movements like Digital Stemme and DI-Day reflect this uniquely European approach—bottom-up, educational, and voluntary.
The goal is not to ban American platforms overnight, but to restore choice, resilience, and autonomy.
Europe’s Digital Future Is a Political Choice
The digital sovereignty debate reveals a deeper truth:Technology is no longer neutral.
Europe’s reliance on American Big Tech has created vulnerabilities that extend far beyond economics—into democracy, security, and everyday life. While China’s model demonstrates the power of technological self-reliance, it also highlights the dangers of excessive control.
Europe does not need to become China to defend itself. But it does need to act decisively, invest in its own digital ecosystem, and empower citizens to reclaim control over their digital lives.
The question, then, is not whether Europe should follow China’s model—but whether it can afford not to build one of its own.
